National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Company Appeals as Infructuous Due to Final Determination of Company Petition. Appeals Challenging Interlocutory Orders on Common Area Maintenance Charges Rendered Infructuous Following Merger with Final Order.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment involved a set of five company appeals concerning the payment of Common Area Maintenance Charges (CAM) by shop owners of Dreams the Mall Company Ltd. The appeals were filed against an order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which had directed the shopkeepers to pay CAM charges based on their respective areas. The appellants, claiming to be shop owners and shareholders, contested the order, arguing that the direction for payment was inappropriate. However, the Tribunal noted that the order was interlocutory and had lost significance due to the final determination of the company petition, C.P. No. 265/MB/2017, which was decided on merits on 25.06.2026. Consequently, the appeals were deemed infructuous as the issues regarding CAM charges had merged with the final order. The Tribunal also addressed subsequent appeals (No. 250 of 2024 and No. 304 of 2024) challenging a later order regarding the collection of maintenance charges, which were similarly dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals had no effective purpose and thus were dismissed.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Interlocutory Orders - Nature of Orders - Company Appeal (AT) No. 58, 62, 112 of 2021 - The appeals challenged an interlocutory order regarding the payment of Common Area Maintenance Charges, which was deemed to have lost significance following the final decision in the company petition. The Tribunal held that the appeals were rendered infructuous as the issues had merged with the final order in the company petition (Paras 6-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeals challenging the order regarding Common Area Maintenance Charges were rendered infructuous due to the final determination of the company petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, noting that the issues regarding CAM charges had merged with the final order in the company petition, which was decided on merits on 25.06.2026.

Law Points

  • Interlocutory orders
  • Common Area Maintenance Charges
  • Company petitions
  • Jurisdiction of NCLT
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 207

Company Appeal (AT) No. 58, 62, 112 of 2021 and 250, 304 of 2024

2026-09-18

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Mr. Arun Baroka, Mr. Indevar Pandey

Mr. Aman Varma, Ms. Riya Wasade, Ms. Minal Mishra, Ms. Meghna Rao, Mr. Abhishek Bose, Muffadal Paperwala, Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Ms. Kenisha Savla, Mr. Inder Singh Mahara

Mehul Vyas, Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd., Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., Switching Avo Electro Power Ltd.

Fiba Shipping Agency & Ors., Rahul Sahasrabuddhe & Ors., Dreams the Mall Company Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Company appeals challenging an interlocutory order regarding maintenance charges.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to challenge the order directing payment of CAM charges.

Filing Reason

The appeals were filed against the NCLT's order regarding CAM charges.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had previously ruled on the company petition, which was later decided on merits.

Issues

Whether the appeals were rendered infructuous due to the final determination of the company petition.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the direction for payment of CAM charges was inappropriate. Respondents contended that the order was valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were rendered infructuous as the interlocutory order regarding CAM charges lost significance following the final determination of the company petition.

Judgment Excerpts

The applications in M.A. No. 2764 of 2019 and C.A. No. 688 of 2020 be and the same are dismissed on contest. The order, which was passed on M.A. No. 1069 of 2020, had partially directed the remittance of the common area maintenance charges.

Procedural History

The appeals were filed against the NCLT's order dated 19.05.2021, which directed payment of CAM charges. Subsequent appeals were filed challenging later orders regarding maintenance charges.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appeal by Union of India in Corruption Case — CBI's Charge Sheet Valid Despite Non-Compliance with CVC Procedures.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against NCLAT Order in Competition Law Case — Locus Standi of Informant Under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002. The Court held that the expression 'any person' in Section 19(1)(a) is wide and does not require th...